Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Correo electrónico para la comunicación de los resultados de los estudios médicos de diagnóstico a los pacientes

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007980.pub2Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 15 agosto 2012see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:

  1. Grupo Cochrane de Consumidores y comunicación

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2012 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Barbara Meyer

    Correspondencia a: General Practice, NHS Education for Scotland, Glasgow, UK

    [email protected]

    [email protected]

  • Helen Atherton

    Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford University, Oxford, UK

  • Prescilla Sawmynaden

    Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK

  • Josip Car

    Global eHealth Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK

    Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Contributions of authors

Barbara Meyer wrote the protocol and the review.

Helen Atherton co‐wrote the protocol and the review and carried out the search.

Prescilla Sawmynaden assisted in conducting the search.

Josip Car conceived the idea for the review.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • NHS Education for Scotland, UK.

    BM was funded during the production of the review protocols by NHS Education for Scotland.

  • eHealth unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, UK.

    The review received a partial financial contribution from The Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London. The Department of Primary Care & Public Health at Imperial College is grateful for support from the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research & Care (CLAHRC) Scheme, the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre scheme, and the Imperial Centre for Patient Safety and Service Quality.

External sources

  • Medical Research Council, UK.

    HA was the recipient of a Medical Research Council PhD Studentship, administered by Imperial College, London, UK (October 2008‐2011).

  • NHS Connecting for Health Evaluation Programme, UK.

    http://www.haps.bham.ac.uk/publichealth/cfhep/

  • National School of Primary Care Research, UK.

    HA is the recipient of a research fellowship from the National School of Primary Care Research (from January 2012)

Declarations of interest

None known.

Acknowledgements

We thank the staff and editors of the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group, especially Sophie Hill and Megan Prictor for their prompt and helpful advice and assistance.

We thank John Kis‐Rigo, Trials Search Coordinator, Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group, for compiling the search strategy.

We thank the authors of the protocol: Mobile phone messaging for communicating results of medical investigations (Gurol‐Urganci 2012). In devising the protocol for this review we adapted their selection criteria for types of studies, participants and interventions for use in this review.

We are also grateful to Helen Marlbourgh, of Glasgow University, for guidance regarding search strategies. We thank Aziz Sheikh who provided general advice on the review.

We thank Carina King and Dr Riyadh Alshamsan for consumer input at the review stage.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2012 Aug 15

Email for communicating results of diagnostic medical investigations to patients

Review

Barbara Meyer, Helen Atherton, Prescilla Sawmynaden, Josip Car

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007980.pub2

2009 Jul 08

Email for communicating results of diagnostic medical investigations to patients

Protocol

Barbara Meyer, Josip Car, Helen Atherton, Brian McKinstry

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007980

Differences between protocol and review

We made changes to the Background section of the review since the protocol was published (Meyer 2009), to update the cited literature.

We had stated in the protocol that the following databases would be searched as part of the grey literature search:

  •  Dissertation Abstracts (North American and European theses) via British Library

  • TrialsCentralTM (www.trialscentral.org)

We did not search these databases, and this decision was made in conjunction with the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group. TrialsCentral TM pulled in information from sources already used in the grey literature search. The only search options were to search by condition or intervention for clinical and drug interventions only (no free text). Dissertation Abstracts was not searched as several of the other databases would duplicate this search (Index to Theses, ProQuest).

MEDLINE search: Minor changes have been made to the MEDLINE strategy since the protocol stage (Meyer 2009). The new version of the search can be found in Appendix 3 of the review. These changes were made in conjunction with the Review Group's Trials Search Coordinator, John Kis‐Rigo. The changes involve the removal of the term 'on‐line' from the strategy. This is because Ovid MEDLINE changed the way it processed this term, and we were retrieving a very high number of articles (20,000+), whereas before the change in processing we had obtained around 8000. Removing this term brought the retrieval rate back down to acceptable levels.

Data synthesis: Minor changes made to the wording of this section for clarity.